Read on Twitter
A thread: I'll be discussing this with my Comparative Politics students, but wanted to share on here as well. Statements like "we look like a third world country" or "this is not us, we're not a banana republic" are not productive comparisons and are harmful in many ways. 1/
This is happening here. Yes, challenges to the peaceful transfer of power in the U.S. are rare, but that doesn't mean we can write off the Jan. 6 insurrection as a stand-alone challenge to our democracy that won't occur again. 2/
Saying this is not who we are, that this is what other countries do, denies our responsibility, perpetuates the myth of American exceptionalism, and draws upon prejudicial stereotypes of other countries as "less than" us. 3/
Countries that might be lumped into the "3rd world" are diverse in terms of both their political and economic development. The category holds no meaning except to write off countries as the global "Other," as something we're not. 4/
It holds no value in trying to understand why we're experiencing democratic backsliding and in finding pathways forward. 5/
This insurrection is us in this moment. We need to sit w/ that & own it if we stand any chance of fixing the flaws in our democracy and society that have been present long before Trump, but have been exacerbated now by political leaders utilizing them to solidify support & power.
The rioters that stormed the Capitol weren't the only threat to democracy yesterday. 7/
Our reps continuing to challenge the legitimacy of the elections (despite dozens of court cases that revealed no evidence of fraud, despite state governments going through their own legal procedures of certifying the election results) also contributed to the erosion of democracy
as people no longer agree to the rules of the game, to how we're supposed to elect people into power and remove them from it. 9/
The response to the insurrection also challenged national unity (considered a prerequisite for democracy) as differential treatment of these mostly white Trump rioters was on clear display in comparison to the violent suppression of BLM protests. 10/
Comparison with other countries can be a useful tool for understanding what happened and to figure out options for strengthening democracy and mending societal divisions moving forward (that's why I'm a comparative political scientist!) 11/
however, the comparisons can't be glib comments putting down other countries and elevating us as exceptional, and they need to be relevant cases for comparison. 12/
For example, protesters in Belarus are protesting in a context of autocratic repression in the wake of an election with strong evidence of fraud and in which opposition leaders were barred from being on the ballot. 13/
That is not what's happening here, so comparisons of "we're now like Belarus" are inaccurate and misleading. Comparisons of why and how people mobilize in these cases can be made, but not without recognizing these important contextual differences. 14/
More analytical leverage might be gained from comparing yesterday to cases of ethnic mobilization or to pro-regime mobilization in nondemocratic regimes instead of comparing it to pro-democracy post-election protests. 15/
To sum up, comparative politics is great, but not when it's driven by stereotypes, ignores important contextual factors on both sides of the comparison, and avoids naming the phenomenon we're dealing with. 16/
Yesterday was a case of an insurrection and ethnic mobilization driven by political leaders trying to stay in power in the United States of America. This is us, but it doesn't have to be. Let's get to work. 17/17
